James Tenney and Meta Hodos

7/29/2019 James Tenney and Meta Hodos

1/14

Music Teory or the wentieth-First Century: James enneys Meta-Hodos

by

Joseph Sowa

Dr. Grimshaw Music 606, sec. 00112 December 2011


2/14

Music Teory or the wentieth-First Century: James enneys Meta-Hodos

As composers in the early twentieth century began to burst the bounds o tonality,

Western music entered a theoretical crisis, unable to elucidate contemporary practice. While

this crisis acutely a ected the works o composers such as Edgar Varse or Anton Webern, even

works by conservative composers such as Samuel Barber and Benjamin Britten t awkwardly

within the old paradigm. At the start o the twenty- rst century, set theory and semiotic analysis

have lled some o this gap, but no tool having both the sophistication and descriptive power o

those available to tonal musicboth traditional methods and more recent ones (such as those by

Schenker, Lerdahl, and ymoczko)has gained signi cant traction. Tus, James enneys 1961

prognosis about theory or twentieth- century music still rings true today: Te problem is not

really one o a lack o amiliarity, but o a nearly complete hiatus between music theory and musi-

cal practice. Tus, even when the novelties o the various styles and techniques o 20th-century

music have become thoroughly amiliar, certain complexities will still remain outside o our

present conceptual ramework ( Meta-Hodos 4).

Recognizing this challenge, enney developed his own sophisticated tool or musical

analysis based on gestalt psychology. Te oundation or much o enneys theoretical work is

contained in his 1961 Masters thesis, entitled Meta-Hodos. Trough its title rom the Greek

roots o English word method, meta meaning a er and hodos meaning way enney sug-

gests the idea that he is presenting not only a new analytical strategy but also a way orward or

theory generally. Later, enney would elaborate on his theory, most signi cantly in 1975 (in his

ormal outline ME A Meta-Hodos) and in 1980 (in his article emporal Gestalt Perception in

Music, co-written with Larry Polansky).


3/14

Sowa 2

While Meta-Hodos and its related works have attracted a small group o loyal admirers, it

has so ar ailed to gain a oothold among larger musical community. Tis obscurity likely derives

rom two main sources: rst, enneys indi erence toward sel -promotion, and second, the den-

sity and esoteric nature o enneys writing itsel . Whatever the reason or its neglect, the theoreti-

cal ramework that enney outlines should be more widely accepted because it not only provides

a rich descriptive ramework but also does so in an intuitive, musical way. In this essay, a er

explaining enneys theory o temporal gestalt analysis and applying it to the ourth movement

o Weberns op. 5 String Quartet, I will then contextualize it within current analytical practices

and propose some contexts or which it could be incorporated into broader use by the musical

community.

Understanding emporal Gestalts

At the heart o enneys theory is the postulate that time is hierarchical: A piece o

music does not consist merely o an inarticulate stream o elementary sounds, but a hierarchi-

cally ordered network o sounds, motives, phrases, passages, sections, movements, etc.i.e.,

time-spans whose perceptual boundaries are largely determined by the nature o the sounds and

sound-con gurations occurring within them ( emporal Gestalt Perception in Music 205).

Tese di erentiated time-spans as they occur on various structural levels enney calls

emporal Gestalt Units (or Gs, see

Figure 1). Super cially, this di erentia-

tion into various structural levels bears

resemblance to Heinrich Schenkers

theory o tonal music. However, two

Element a pitch or sound

Clang motive Sequence phrase Segment phrase group Section section Piece

Figure 1. Approximate scale of temporal gestalt unitswith reference to traditional analytical terms


4/14

Sowa 3

signi cant eatures distinguish enneys conception rom Schenkers. First, enneys theory works

independent o speci c materials (i.e., the tonality in Schenkerian analysis). Second, unlike

Schenkers concept o undamental line, any teleology observed through temporal gestalts springs

rom gestalt- orming actors (to be discussed later) rather than enneys interpretive lens.

Although many actors can contribute to the perception o a time-span as a temporal

gestalt, enney suggests that each parameterabsolute pitch, register, rhythm, timbre, dynam-

ics, etc.be graphed independently as a unction against time. Te salient parameters vary rom

piece to piece and sometimes within a piece. As enney explains, Whereas in earlier music the

responsibility or the articulation o musical ideas was mainly given to the pitch parameter, the

other parameters have begun to carry more and more o this responsibility, sometimes replac-

ing the unction o pitch altogether ( Meta-Hodos 18). With these parameters thus graphed, it

becomes easier to determine the boundaries between Gs.

Without going into his arguments, enney proposes that Gs can be distinguished using

actors similar to those used to distinguish visual gestalts (see Meta-Hodos 2). Te two primary

distinguishing actors or temporal gestalts are proximity and similarity. By proximity, enney

means that elements group themselves by their

spatial distribution. In music, this distribution

happens in pitch space and in time. By similar-

ity, enney means that, given equal distribution,

comparable elements will seem like independent

groups. (See Figure 2.)

In addition to these two primary actors, enney identi es our additional ones in uence

G perception: (1) Intensity is the relative position o a parameter with respect to time: e.g., rise

Proximity: 000 00 0000 00 00000

Similarity: 000###0000##

Figure 2. Te G-deterimining factors of proximity and similarity are quite easy tounderstand from their visual equivalents.


5/14

Sowa 4

and all o a melody, increase in dynamics or tempo, shi rom a mellow to a harsh timbre, etc.

Where these parameters vary widely, the intensity peaks become ocal points and the starting

point o Gs ( Meta-Hodos 41). (2) Repetition o a parametric pro le tends to divide a whole into

parts de ned by the repetition, whether exact or approximate. (3) Objective set re ers to those

expectations created internally by a work. enney cites hemiola as an example e ect produced

by objective set. (4) Lastly, subjective set re ers to those expectations that listeners bring to a work

rom their li e experience.

Because enney views time and temporal gestalts as hierarchical, these same actors that

determine G boundaries are the same that dictate orm orm, being nothing more than tempo-

ral gestalts occurring on successively larger scales. According to enney, orm in music comprises

three distinct acets: shape, structure, and state. Shape re ers to the parametric variation within a

G (a direct outcome o intensity); structure re ers to its internal relationships; and state re ers to

its overall, statistical properties.

Because temporal gestalts are perceived because o their di erences, it should be no sur-

prise that enney also sees each o these aspects o orm arising rom contrast rather than unity

(as it is o en discussed, particularly in relation to the common practice repertoire): It is the

di erences between the successive elements o a clang, (and between the successive clangs o a

sequence), which determine the orm o the clang (or sequence)not the similarities, although

the latter usually constitute the primary actor o cohesion ( Meta-Hodos 5859).

enney also notes that, in determining orm, the ormative parameter in a given con gu-

ration is generally distinct rom the cohesive parameter in that same con guration ( Meta-Hodos

64). Tis conclusion is, o course, a consequence o the actor o similarity. I a group o Gs are


6/14

Sowa 5

related by the same actor, they will be enmesh into a larger scale G, and thus, that cohesive ac-

tor cannot be the one by which they derive their orm.

Application to Webern op. 5, mvt. 4

With this overview in place, were prepared to discuss enneys theory in application to a

piece. I chose to analyze the ourth movement o Weberns op. 5, because it is a good example o

twentieth-century repertoire or which traditional analytical paradigms reveal little. For instance,

whereas set theory may describe the sonorities and their trans ormations in this movement, it

does little to reveal the movements shape and structure. In contrast, temporal gestalt analysis

quickly reveals some pertinent and interesting eatures o the movement.

In the appendix, I have reproduced the score o the movement in its entirety and color-

coded the Gs at their various levels. Tis process reveals that, generally, Webern separates his

clangs using the actor o proximity and his sequences using the actor o similarity. We see many

o these actors in play in the rst sequence o the piece (measures 12). Te space between the

tremolos in the violins separates them into separate clangs (proximity- actor); yet the similarity

between them in register and timbre unites them into the same sequence. Likewise, because the

ollowing pizzicato chord also alls in the same register, it is perceived as part o that sequence.

Because the cello E- at exists in a di erent register and in a di erent temporal location, its lack

o proximity makes it perceived as a separate clang. In addition, its unique timbre rein orces this

perception (because o the similarity- actor). However, because these clangs ow continuously

rom one to the other until the downbeat o measure 3, they all are perceived as part o the same

sequence by rhythmic proximity.


7/14

Sowa 6

We see such primary actors o temporal gestalt perception happening later on in the

movement at a larger scale temporal gestalt level. In the realm o segments, the third system

becomes ocal point o the movement because o the similarity actor: not only is it the longest

sequence (twice as long as all the others), but it also contains the most stable texture (elsewhere

in the movement, ideas are more ragmentary). Again, that this perception derives rom the dis-

similarity o this segment rom the others rein orces enneys claim that orm arises rom contrast

rather than unity.

Tis movement also contains good examples o the in uence o secondary actors in G

perception. Te primary temporal gestalt o measures 34 (primary because o its being the most

rhythmically and timbrally intense), the descending eighth note gure, is perceived as a clang

because o its repetition. (Each iteration is also distinguished by its shi ing location in pitch

space.) In the third system, the violas pizzicato arpeggios also separate themselves into separate

clangs because o the actor o repetition.

Regarding the ormal shape o the movement, we can observe that the sequences progress

rom ragmentariness to near unity o the measures 1112. While the uniqueness o the third

system sets it apart rom the rest o the movement, the intensity o measures 1112 that help this

section eel climactic. In these measures, Webern unites all the instruments in their highest regis-

ters and harshest timbres, in addition to ul lling the process o coalescence.

As we explore the structure o the movement, more interesting relationships reveal

themselves. First, at the largest ormal scale, the movement is bounded by two pizzicato chords.

Second, each section o the piece nishes with an upward run. Again, intensity actors into our

perception o these clangs as they relate to the structure o the movement. For most o the move-

ment, they sound separately as terminal markers. Only at the end o the movement do both ter-


8/14

Sowa 7

minal markers appear, one a er the other. Likewise, the intensity o the upward run with respect

to rhythm also contributes to the movements sense o closure. Initially, the upward run consists

o even sixteenth notes (measure 6), with the slight modi cation o a ritardando. At its second

appearance, not only does the run slow down in response to a ritardando but also because it is

written in progressively slower values, triplet eighth notes becoming straight eighth notes. In its

nal appearance, however, the run is not only at its astest (responding to no ritardando), it also

speeds up, going rom straight sixteenths to quintuplet sixteenths. (Tis e ect o this variation in

rhythm can also be seen as deriving rom the objective set actor.)

Tese structural ormal eatures in turn rein orce the movements morphological orm.

Te gradual coalescence o the rst our sequences is afrmed by the gradual slowing down o

the rst upward run, and the even greater coalescence o the sixth sequence is afrmed more

emphatically by the even greater slowing down o the section upward run. At that point, Webern

snaps back to his two-measure pace with the most intense sequence o the entire movement and

ollows this punctuation with both structural markers, the run this time speeding up, mirroring

the increased pace and intensity o what just happened.

Tese observations were made with limited recourse to speci c pitches; however, in this

parameter, as well, temporal gestalt analysis reveals interesting structural observations. One o the

important melodic motives in the piece is the movement rom E to F-sharp to G. It rst appears

in the upper voice o Violin I and is soon trans erred down two octaves to the Viola in measure

2. Just be ore measure 5, still in the viola, the motive nishes its progress, down another octave.

At this point, its use is suspended until the climax o the piece at measure 11, where it occurs in

its highest octave yet as harmonics in Violin I. Again, in this process we nd an afrmation o the

movements morphological orma gradual relaxing ollowed by a spike o intensity.


9/14

Sowa 8

Clearly, urther discussion could be had about the structure and morphology o the whole

movement as well as its constituent Gs, but at this point, I want to emphasize how immediately

trans errable these observations are to musical practice. By analyzing the movement in this way,

members o a quartet would be able to understand their individual roles as they relate to the orm

o the movement, on all scales. Te same way knowledge o sonata principles helps players shape

their per ormance o common practice repertoire, an awareness o the Gs and their relation-

ships in this movement would enable per ormers to see the orest or the trees and to highlight

the gestures and their relationships in this work.

Contextualization o Other Analytical Systems

In the context o other prevalent methodologies or analyzing twentieth-century music,

the virtue o such depth and immediate applicability should be obvious. Set theory, or instance,

(see Cook 124151) may do a good job classi ying the sonorities and their trans ormations in

the Webern movement, but because most listeners (and many per ormers) will never be capableo hearing the intricate trans ormations Forte identi es, the use ulness o a comprehensive set

theory analysis (i.e., beyond classi ying the sonorities) is questionable. Furthermore, because set

theory is solely ocused on pitch, any ormal guidance it o ers would be tangential at best. In con-

trast, it would be possible to subsume a set theory analysis into an overall temporal gestalt analy-

sis, using the identi ed sets as a way to urther distinguish Gs.

Likewise, while semiotic analysis (see Cook 151182) also deconstructs pieces into their

component parts, it submerges larger scale hierarchies in avor o structural similarities on lower

level ones. Consequently, though it gives a comprehensive sense o a works actors, it obscures

their ormal integration. In addition, while the comprehensiveness may provide the virtue o


10/14

Sowa 9

thoroughness, it makes the analytical process time intensive. In contrast, even a cursory temporal

gestalt analysis can provide use ul insights.

Most o these bene ts o temporal gestalt analysis arise because o its relentless pursuit o

its initial postulate, the hierarchical nature o time. While such a hierarchy may seem sel -evident

to most musicians, acknowledging this postulate is critical, because rom it arise several key con-

clusions. First, i music is seen as a hierarchically ordered network o discrete components, then

there must be a way, as enney implies, to identi y their perceptual boundaries (which way has

been previously described). Consequently, the exact nature o these components are irrelevant,

and the analyst may proceed without recourse to stylistic assumptions, because the works hierar-

chy will guide its own dissection. Likewise, because this network is hierarchical, components on

a smaller hierarchical scale must subsume into those on a larger scale, rom indivisible sounds up

until the complete piece. Consequently, enneys initial postulate creates a ramework that is not

only stylistically neutral but also simultaneously accounts or both orm and content. 1

Finally, I should note that my application o temporal gestalt analysis di ers somewhat

rom the late methods o enney and his collaborator Larry Polansky. In their 1980 paper, enney

and Polansky use a computer analysis program . . . to obtain hierarchical segmentations (217).

While such interdisciplinary excursions could be use ul or musicologists and theorists, or the

average musician, they perpetuate very ri between theory and practice that enney critisized

in 1961. What could be more counterproductive or a theory whose goal is to reunite theory and

practice, particularly one that succeeds in doing so, to then extend its reach well beyond the realm

1 While these consequences may lay the groundwork or a tremendously exible analytical tool, it should be obviousthat they avor the listeners conception o the piece over the composers. Indeed, I eel that one o the most valid criti-cisms o twentieth-century music was that composers o en ailed to acknowledge this distinction in their compo-sitional process. For instance, as Stockhausen discovered the hard way, you cant create point music without thesepoints grouping themselves into unintended relationshipswhich groups arise or the reasons enney identi es.


11/14

Sowa 10

o musical practice? Most musicians are neither programmers or statisticians, and even or those

who are, these disciplines have practically no in uence on per ormance and only limited in u-

ence on composition (an in uence limited to those composers whose artistic interests require the

use o such tools). Tus, I would rather promote the study and use o enneys ideas in ways that

mirror common musical practice rather than those ways that extend beyond that practice.

G Analysis as a New Common Practice

By ar the most compelling eature o enneys theory o temporal gestalt is its stylistic

neutrality. What was clear in 1961 is even more obvious now: any sound can be used to create

music, whether that sound is a diatonic scale or the barking o Brian Wilsons dogs. 2 Likewise,

its no longer unusual or musicians to it between Classical, jazz, rock, electronic, and experi-

mental musicor even to combine these genres. Indeed, this eclecticism is our new common

practice. Tus, any new common practice theory must be style-blind. Tough daunting as pre-

sented in enneys prose, enneys theory o temporal gestalts is the only contemporary music

theory that not only has this kind o inclusive power but also is simple enough (a er some care ul

explanation) or the average musician to use, thus placing it in prime position to take up the new

common -practice mantle.

Still, at this point, temporal gestalt analysis is a nearly untapped resourse. Its potential uses

are many and varied. On the analytical end, i there is any repertoire that screams or G analy-

sis, it would be electronic music, particularly musique concrte, and though enney wrote some

electronic works rom a temporal gestalt perspective (see Ames 456), no one has ever analyzed

eletronic music using it. In addition, G analysis could also be use ul in examining tonal rep-

2 Tey appear at the end o Caroline, No on the Beach Boys album Pet Sounds.


12/14

Sowa 11

ertoires. In these repertoires, the harmonic aspects have, o course, recevied endless attention;

however, their sonic aspects, such as texture and gesture, have languished in comparative neglect. 3

Such questions are precisely what G analysis is good at. In addition, enneys conception o orm

arising rom the contrast o G units is a novel concept in tonal analysis and could provide new

insights outside the purview o traditional and Schenkerian analysis.

Pedagogically, G analysis also has much potential use in coaching twentieth-century

music and in teaching composition. O those rst uses, G analysis teaches players un amiliar

with twentieth-century styles how to parse the (seeming) jumble o notes into coherent musi-

cal phrases. Tis cognitive ability would do much to help young musicians hostile to new music

change their attitude as it goes rom being something harsh and incomprehensible to at least

being harsh but ordered. O the second use, G analysis provides an excellent conceptual rame-

work or young composers not only to grasp the interrelationships o orm and content on di er-

ent ormal levels but also to uni y disparate musical materials.

While all these applications hold great potential, they are all naively optimistic unless

more groundwork is done to amiliarize the musical community with enneys theory and dem-

onstrate its use ulness. It is hoped that this paper is a step in that direction.

3 Among scholarly works devoted to the subject o texture speci cally, some notable re erences include: (1) Berry,Wallace. Structural Functions of Music. New York: Prentice Hall, 1976.; (2) ubb, Monte. extural Constructions inMusic. Journal of Music Teory Pedagogy 1 (Fall 1987): 201224; and (3) rimmer, Maud Alice. exture and SonataForm in the Late String Chamber Music o Haydn and Mozart. PhD Diss. City University o New York, 1981.


13/14

Sowa 12

Appendix: emporal Gestalt Analysis o Webern op. 5, mvt. 4

Yellow = clangs arising from proximity factor Green = clangs arising from repetition factor

Red = clangs united by similarity factor

Blue = key structural clangsPink = melodic motive

Purple = sequences


14/14

Sowa 13

Works Cited

Ames, Charles. Re ections on James enney Perspectives of New Music25 (Winter-Summer

1987): 455458.

Cook, Nicholas. A Guide to Musical Analysis. London: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd, 1987.

enney, James. Meta-Hodos and ME A Meta-Hodos . Lebanon, NH: Frog Peak Music, 2000.

enney, James and Larry Polansky. emporal Gestalt Perception in Music. Journal of Music

Teory 24 (Autumn 1980): 205241.

Webern, Anton. Fnf Stze fr Streichquartett . Wein: Universal Edition, 1922.

Documents

James Tenney and Meta Hodos